See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/239774810

The Marketing Mix: A Retrospection and Evaluation

Article  in  Journal of Marketing Education · March 1988

DOI: 10.1177/027347538801000104

CITATIONS READS

19 1,362

1 author:

Gordon C. Bruner
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
60 PUBLICATIONS   5,124 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Marketing Scales Handbook - Volume 11 View project

Consumer Acceptance of Technology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gordon C. Bruner on 05 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of http://jmd.sagepub.com/
Marketing Education

The Marketing Mix: A Retrospection and Evaluation

Gordon C. Bruner II
Journal of Marketing Education 1988 10: 29
DOI: 10.1177/027347538801000104

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jmd.sagepub.com/content/10/1/29

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Marketing Education can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jmd.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jmd.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jmd.sagepub.com/content/10/1/29.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Mar 1, 1988

What is This?

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at SOUTHERN IL UNIV CARBONDALE on February 28, 2012

 The Marketing Mix: A Retrospection and Evaluation

Gordon C. Bruner I1

A i e the presently used paradigms of the marketing mix adequate for describing
the breadth of inarketiiig applications in the 1980s and beyond? Previously proposed
models of the mix are evaluated and‘found to have shortcomings. Criteria are estab-
lished for evaluatiiig presently available models as well as any paradigm offered in the
ftiture.

While several descriptions of the marketing
mix have been advanced in the last three decades,
certainly the most popular has been the “four
P’s’’.. product, price, place, and promotion
(McCarthy 1960). There is little doubt that it
has been a useful tool for both educators and
practitioners alike. However, some have begun
to question its usefulnessgiven the many changes
that have occurred in the field and have offered
alternative conceptualizations (e,g., Cooper
1985; Johnson 1986; Magrath 1986). The pur-
pose of this article is t o suggest criteria for
judging such marketing mix schema and to com-
pare several proposed conceptualizations against
these criteria.
importance of this concept for them was that
management must create a suitable marketing
mix for some target market more efficiently
and effectively than competition as a basis
for achieving a profit.
Borden (1959) originally envisioned the
elements as being product planning, packaging,
pricing, branding, channels of distribution,
physical handling, personal selling, servicing,
sales promotion, marketing research, and ad-
vertising. A more eloquent phrasing was pro-
posed by McCarthy (1960), who reduced the
list to just four variables: product, price, place,
and promotion. In the quarter of a century
since the marriage of the marketing mix concept I

and the “four P’s,” the fusion has been so

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE
. MARKETING MIX CONCEPT .
The marketing mix concept was popular-
ized by Borden (1957, 1964) and Borden and
Marshall (1959), although Culliton (1 984) is
credited as the originator of the term. These
writers realized that companies have numerous
variables under their control that can be manipu-
lated to achieve marketing objectives. They
were convinced that marketers, just as bakers or
painters, develop mixes from the same basic in-
gredients. These mixes are then directed to con-
sumers with varying degrees of acceptance. The
- ties as marketing research and consumer affairs.
Gordon C. Bruner I1 is Assistant Professor, Depart-
ment of Marketing, Southern Illinois University,
Carbondale, Illinois.
complete that the two barely have separate
identities anymore., The semantic appeal of
McCarthy’s list certainly has been a major factor
in the acceptance and use of the marketing mix
concept.
Unfortunately, maturity has been difficult
for the “four P’S.’’ They have remained the
same while the application of marketing and the
marketing mix has changed. The concept was
fashioned in another period for a more narrow
view of marketing, and only with great diffi-
culty d o the “four P’s” describe the marketing
mix used in such exchange situations as found
in education, religion, charities, and govern-
ment. Even in business applications, the “four
P’s’’ ignores such important marketing activi-
Are other description lists available which can
better Serve our needs? If so, what criteria
should any proposed conceptualization meet?

JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION 29

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at SOUTHERN IL UNIV CARBONDALE on February 28, 2012

 MARKETING MIX DOMAIN AND
SEMANTIC CRITERIA
Practitioners and educators have the free-
dom to use terminology with which they feel
most comfortable. However, a lack of uni-
formity leads to a breakdown in communication
between individuals and groups, and growth of
the discipline is better served if an agreed upon
patadigm can be identified.
”To make such a selection, criteria should be
developed first to compare and contrast the
alternatives. Realistically, the criteria should be
sufficiently rigorous to meet the standards and
expectations of potential users. Otherwise, the
probability of a new conceptualization being
adopted is rather low.
Hunt (1983) has proposed a set of criteria
that can be used to evaluate a marketing para-
digm. The following criteria are based on that
set but are more task-specific:
1. The terms should be broad enough to fit
’ most exchange situations.
2. The conceptualization should have peda-
gogical appeal.
3. The individual terms should suggest activi-
ties that most practitioners relate to and are
comfortable with.
4. The mix should reflect a consumer orienta-
tiop.
Criterion 1 suggests that the individual
terms and the collection as a whole should be
flexible enough to apply to less conventional
marketing situations as well as to traditional
businesses. What should be avoided is one
description of the marketing mix for the normal
business setting and another description for non-
profit and nonbusiness applications. While
adjustments in strategy admittedly are neces-
sary as one moves from situation to situation,
, the terminology of the discipline should be
sufficiently robust to apply in all situations.
Also involved in this criterion is the idea
that any set of terms should cover the responsi-
bilities of traditional businesses that were never
expressly incorporated into past marketing mix
descriptions. For example, the nonmonetary
costs consumers incur are not implied by or
30 SPRING 1988
Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at SOUTHERN IL UNIV CARBONDALE on February 28, 2012
normally considered as part of the “price”
variable. Also, for a long time it has been noted
that “place” does not imply the range of activi-
ties and possibilities involved in distributing the
product (Vaile, Grether, and Cox 1952). One of
the more significant shortcomings concerns
marketing research: while we may teach that it
is an important marketing activity, it is not
normally incorporated into the marketing mix,
although several have suggested it should be
(e.g., Borden and Marshall 1959; Hise, Gillett,
and Ryans 1979; Johnson 1986; Traynor 1985).
Criterion 2 is satisfied if each of the market-
ing mix variables begin with the same letter;
teaching and learning of the concept is made
easier (although there is the risk of oversimplifi-
cation). A list which makes use of existing
terminology rather than creating new terms
would facilitate the acceptance of the list.
Finally, the adaption of any new set of
terms would be easier if it were seen to be re-
lated in some way to the previously popular
conceptualization, the “four P’s.’’ Ideally,
each of the “four P’s” would be replaced with
another term which satisfies the criteria.
Criterion 3 involves the connotative mean-
ing rather than the denotative meaning of cri-
terion 1. A major motive behind an update of
the marketing mix is to make it more flexible
and acceptable to practitioners in the ever-
widening application of marketing thought.
Unfortunately, connotations of the present
terms are unpalatable to many involved in the
nonbrisiness realm of marketing (e.g., Carroll
1986; Cebrzynski 1985; Harford 1985). This is
especially true of the term “product.” While
academicians may not have trouble applying
the term to any good, service, or idea in the
broadest sense, many practitioners do. Con-
vincing physicians, clergy, or artists to view their
activity as a “product” is a difficult task. The
. term implies to them a kind of commercialism
they would like to avoid yet at the Same time
they want to facilitate the exchanges in which
they are engaged. Certainly, more neutral
terminology would serve the purpose better. -
Criterion 4 stems from the observation that
proposed mixes up until now have tended to
view the exchange process from the initiator’s
point of view,’ a bias characteristic of the sales
orientation rather than the marketing concept.
Although a conceptualization oriented totally
towards the consumer could be just as
 a more balanced set of terminolo-
gy js called for.
Admittedly, the components of the mix
lnust refer to those variables the initiator of the
transaction can manipulate to satisfy the con-
suming party’s needs as a means of achieving
organizational objectives. Yet, the consumer
js not treated as an equal partner in present
nlarketing mix conceptualizations.
In essence, then, the role of the consumer
should be elevated to the level of the marketer.
HOW do they view these same variables? This
balance of views should be more obviously
reflected in marketing mix terminology.
CRITIQUE OF PREVIOUS MARKETING
MIX CONCEPTUALIZATIONS
Since Borden’s initial discussions of the mar-
keting mix several versions have been proposed,
each with its advantages and disadvantages.
Borden’s description of the marketing mix
listed 1 1 items. Most writers since then have
chosen to develop groupings of variables rather
than having an itemized list. The five versions
critiqued here are listed in Exhibit 1. Each is
discussed as to its merits relative to the stated
criteria.
McCarthy’s (1960) list of the marketing mix
elements is certainly the most well known. Its
quick adoption and continued use indicate its
ability to conimunicate efficiently and effec-
tively the marketer’s decision areas. The “four
P’s’’ are used widely in marketing textbooks,
reflecting its pedagogical appeal (criterion 2).
Further, the “four P’s” seem to have been ac-
cepted by many businesspeople (criterion 3).
However, the “four P’s’’ are not as well
suited for this new era of generic marketing.
Only with great difficulty and confusion are
they applied in nonbusiness exchange situations.
Criteria 1, 3, and 4 are not well met by this
coIIection anymore. As pointed out earlier,
these terms are viewed by many of the new
reluctant marketers as a kind of commercialism
they want no part of (criterion 3). Even in
business applications the terms clearly are
limited in their description of marketing func-
tions (criterion 1). As already noted, “place,”
“price,” and “product” no longer convey all
that is encompassed within them. The fourth
“P,” promotion, denotes an organization telliizg
something to the consumer but it fails to reflect
the marketer’s primary role as a listener. This
last example, the denotation of “promotion,”
also illustrates particularly well the sales orien-
tation of the “four P’s” (criterion 4).
An even earlier description of the mix
(Frey 1956) had just two groups of variables:
“the offering” and “methods and tools.” Frey

EXHIBIT 1
MARKET1 NG MIX CONCEPTUALIZATIONS

Author
{data) Marketing Mix Variables
Frey Tho offering Method & Tools
(1956)

warthy Product Price Place Promotion

(1960)

Staudt & Ploduct & services Distribution Communication

Taylor (1965) mix mix mix
Kelly &
Lazer (1973)

Lipson & Product Tams of Distribution Communication

Darling (1971) component sale component component
mix component mix mix
mix

Kotler Configuration Valuation Facilitation Symbolization

(1972)

JOURNALOF MARKETING EDUCATION 31

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at SOUTHERN IL UNIV CARBONDALE on February 28, 2012

was attempting to make a distinction between
the object of the exchange and those many
things that exist to facilitate the exchange.
Frey’s division is intellectually appealing, is
simple, and would seem to partially satisfy cri-
terion 1 in that the two terms themselves are
rather neutral and would seem to have no
negative connotations associated with them
(criterion 3). However, criteria 2 and 4 are less
well met. Not only do these terms lack the
specificity of the “four P’s” but a case could be
made that all of the marketing mix variables
compose “the offering.” Apparently, this
model is lacking a conceptual package for
teachers as evidenced by its lack of widespread
use after all of this time.
Although evident in their earlier texts
(1962,1967), Kelly and Lazer most clearly
defined their marketing mix in the 1973 edi-
tion of Mailagerial Marketing. They presented
a set essentially the same as that of Staudt and
Taylor (1965) in that both sets of authors
divided the variables in the mix into three
groups: a product and service mix (including
price), a distribution mix, and a communication
mix. Their “product and service” mix is similar
to Frey’s “offering” in that it is “the actual
offering that a company makes to the market-
place as perceived by c u ~ t o m e r ~(Kelly
’~ and
Lazer 1973, p. 29). Such a consumer-oriented
definition at least partially satisfies criterion 4.
The idea of regarding each marketing mix
variable as a mix itself is healthy (criterion 1).
It stands in contrast to the variables referring
to single items or responsibilities; e.g., “product
and service mix” versus The impli-
cation is that the individual components of the
marketing mix are, in essence, multidimensional
factors that are composed of many activities
mixed together to achieve some desired objective.
While having advantages over some of the
other approaches, this three-factor marketing
mix fails to adequately satisfy all of the cri-
teria. For example, Kelly and Lazer described
the “distribution mix” in terms of physical
distribution and intermediary activities but did
not refer to all the many other responsibilities
(criterion 1). Further, even though they have a
“communication mix” which implies a two-way
exchange of information, such a feedback
function was not included in their description
(criteria 1 and 4). Finally, as with many of the
other alternative mixes, this one lacks the
semantic appeal of the “four P’s” (criterion 2).
32 SPRING 1988
Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at SOUTHERN IL UNIV CARBONDALE on February 28, 2012
Apparently building upon the mix concept
just mentioned, Lipson and Darling (1971)
proposed a four-component model composed o f
a product component mix, a terms of sale com-
ponent mix, a distribution component mix, and
a communication component mix. Similar to
the three-component models previously dis-
cussed, this conceptualization views each varia-
ble in the marketing mix as being a submix
rather than being unidimensional. Specifically,
each of the four main components is further
subdivided into four variables: the product
component mix is composed of the physical
product, product services, the brand, and the
package; the terms of sale component mix in-
cludes the basic price, price alterations, credit
terms, and transport and handling terms; the
distribution component mix has as its parts
shipping facilities, inventory control, storage
facilities, and marketing channels; and the com-
munication component mix is made up of public
relations, special promotions, personal sales
presentations, and advertisements.
This model certainly maintains symmetry
with the “four P’s” and makes use of familiar
terminology (criterion 2). However, it is less
adequate in meeting the other criteria. It is not
broad enough to cover several common market-
ing activities such as marketing research and
customer service (criterion 1). While the submix
concept broadens its range of application, it is
still not sufficient for use in many nonbusiness
situations (criterion l), nor is the terminology
sufficiently neutral (criterion 3). Finally, the
terms and the overall approach still reflect an
inherent bias towards the marketer over the
consumer (criterion 4).
Kotler (1972) approached the development
of a marketing mix differently from his prede-
cessors. His purpose was to have a group of
terms that was, above all, “generic” and, there-
fore, applicable to aI1 sorts of exchange situa-
tions. His list was composed of configuration,
valuation, facilitation, and symbolization.
’ The collection certainly has a broad range of
application (criterion 1) and retains a one-to-
one correspondence with the “four P’S,’’ as sug-
gested in criterion 2. However, it suffers on
several accounts. Although the terms have a
similar suffix they lack the simplicity and
familiarity that would make them amenable for
classroom and textbook use. Likewise, the
terms are not particularly commonplace for
fi,arketingacademicians and practitioners. Final-
as broad as the terms may be they still d o
N 9
cover all the critical marketing activities
not
(criterion 1). Specifically, symbolization does
mot suggest that listening and questioning roles
dould be performed by the marketer before,
during, and after the exchange. As such, there-
fore, it still views the exchange from the mar-
keter’s point of view rather than taking a more
balanced approach (criterion 4).
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The “four P’s” model of the marketing mix
has had a long and useful life. Although it has
begun to show its age, none of the alternative
,-onceptualizations discussed here seems likely
to replace it. Hopefully, new paradigms will be
proposed in the near future which can incorpor-
ate the best of the previous conceptualizations
but avoid their weaknesses.
One may wonder, however, whether the
inertia from using the “four P’s” for over a
quarter of a century might by itself seal the fate
of any potential replacement. Admittedly, the
inertia is not in those practitioners who have
recently discovered marketing nor %.-it in the
upcoming generations of students. The entrench-
ment is due to those of us who have adopted the
conceptualization over the years. Therefore, the
decision falls particularly into the hands of us,
the educators: should a paradigm continue to
be used which was developed for a more limited
view of our discipline or should a broader con-
ceptualization be sought, one that better cap-
tures the scope of marketing as it enters the
twenty-first century? Whatever the decision,
this article provides an initial analysis of the
alternatives and the criteria for judging them.
Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at SOUTHERN IL UNIV CARBONDALE on February 28, 2012
View publication stats
REFERENCES
Bordon, Neil H. (1957), Note on Concept o f the hfarketing
Aiix, Boston: Intercollegiate Case Clearing House,Harvard
University.
(1964), ‘The Concept of the Marketing Mix,” J o u m l
ofAdvertising Research, 4 (June), 2-1.
Borden, Neil H. and Martin V. hlarshall (1959), Advertising
Afamgement: Text und Cases, Homewood, IL: Richard D.
Invin, Inc.
Cebrzynski, G r e g (1985), “hlarketing, Tradition Clash in Health
Care,” Marketing News, 19 (November 8), 1, 30.
Carroll, Susan R. (1986), “Healthcare Students Ought to Learn
hlarketing,” Marketing N e w , 20 (July 18), 14.
Cooper, Philip D. (1985), Health Care Marketing, Germantown,
hiD: Aspen Systems Corporation.
Culliton, James W. (1948), The bfanagement of hfarketing
Costs, Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of
Business Administration, Harvard University.
P Frey. Albcrt W. (1956), nte Effective Marketing Mix, Hanover,
NH: Amos Tuck School, Dartmouth Collegc.
Harford, James C. (1985), “PR Work for Lawyers Can Be
Uniquely Satisfying,” Marketing N e w , 19 (November
22),21.
Hise, Richard T., Peter L. Gillett, and John K. Ryans (1979),
Bask Marketing: Concepts and Decisions, Cambridge,
hIA: Winthrop Publishers.
Hunt, Shelby D. (1983), Marketing Uieory, Homewood, IL:
Richard D. Invin, Inc.
Johnson, Allwyn A. (1986), “Adding More ‘Ps’ to the Pod, or
12 Essential Elements of hlarketing,” Marketing News, 2 0
(April 1l), 2.
Kelly, Eugene J. and William h z e r (1962), Managerial hfarket-
ing, Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin,Inc.
(1967), Managerial Marketing, Homewood, IL:
Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
(1973), Managerial hfarketing, Homewood, IL:
Richard D. Invin, Inc.
Kotler, Philip (1972). “A Generic Concept of Marketing,”
Journal of Marketing, 36 (April), 46-54.
Lipson, Harry A. and John R. Darlhg (1971), Introduction to
Marketinn: An Administrative Amroach.
John Wiey and Sons Inc.
.. New York:
hlagrath. A. J. (1986), “When hlarketing Services, 4 P’s Are
Not Enowh.” Business Horizons. 29 Wav-June). 44-50.
McCarthy, E. Jerome (1960), Basic kfarketiig: A‘>fanageriai
Apprcmch, Homewood, IL: Richard D. Invin, Inc.
Staudt, Thomas A. and Donald A. Taylor (1965), A Managerial
Introduction t o Marketing, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall, Inc.
Traynor, Kenneth (1 985), “Research Deserves Status as hlar-
keting’s Fifth ‘P’,” Marketing News, 19 (November 8),
7,12.
Vaile, Roland S., E. T. Grether, and Reavis Cox (1952), Market-
ing in the American Economy, New York: The Ronald
Press Company.
JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION 33